Joseph Smith's Marital Bed

[_charity]

We don't know the particulars of hardly any of the early applicaton of the sealing power.

This statement demonstrates a profound ignorance of church history.

Your interpretation just means that you have read a lot into the facts that aren't explicitly stated.

We know the revelation on the sealing power was like an explosion. Up to this time,the prevailing religious thought was, just as it is today in most of the Christian world, that family relationships ended at death. Not only were spouses parted by the "til death do you part" of their vows, but chldren from parents. People went a little giddy. Men were sealed to men. Women were proxies for males. We know Joseph was a very loyal friend, and felt friendships very strongly. Many of the sealings appar to be attempts to connect families in what is called dynastic relationships.

Good heavens. Are you suggesting that the angel who commanded Joseph to take other men's wives was just being a little giddy?

Runtu, you know better than that. The SAINTS were giddy.

We don't know what the level of intimacy was with Joseph and any of his sealed wives. I think probably there were marital relations with some.

Another remarkably ignorant statement.

Have you read Compton? How do you deal with the fact that there have been no proven biological descendants from Joseph among his sealed wives? We know he could father children. Emma ha 10 pregnancies.

And since the prophet Nathan can give wives to David, I don't see why the Lord couldn't give wives to Joseph. If the Lord commands, there is no sin.

My point precisely. Why are you folks so squeamish about Joseph's having sex with his wives? If God commanded it, then it was OK, even with the polyandrous wives, right? At least Will Schryver is up front about this. Why aren't you?

My point exactly. That was what I said. God commands, it is not sin. But that doesn't mean we know everything even so.

I do not believe, because there is absolutely no evidence at all, that Helen Mar Kimball was anything but a sealed wife. No marital relations.

What is it you're always saying: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? What reason is there to believe that Helen was the exception to the norm?

And what was the norm? No offspring. That says something about the norm.

And if you are still stuck on that "threaten" aspect. The Lord generally is pretty explicit about what the results will be of disobedience. You have agency. You can chose to sin. You just can't chose the consequences. You jump off a bridge in exercising your agency. You fall on the rocks below because that is the consequence of ignoring the law of gravity. Same deal.

I wonder what the consequences are for rationalizing lecherous behavior.

I suppose anyone who does that has a lot of repenting to do. But what is your proof that this happened?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Charity...

All the "I know what God thinks, and He wouldn't command this" and "I know which marriages were sealings and which were plural marriages" and "all women would think this way and no woman would think that way" are false assumptions on the part of all those posters who use them. And when you take those erroneous ideas out of the topic, you would have nothing to talk about.

You are arguing against nothing. (sigh)

Who has ever said they know what God thinks or what God would or wouldn't command? (Actually I think it is the apologists who claim to know). Who has ever said all women would think this way or that way?

There is quite a bit of evidence of which you are either unaware or in denial describing sealings, marriages, intimate relationships with Joseph Smith, etc. etc.

With all due respect Charity, it becomes tiresome when you argue with some imagined person.

~dancer~

[_Zoidberg]

I think polygamy is fine, as long as no one is being coerced. Helen Mar kimball was being coerced by Joseph Smith and her father; it doesn't matter whether there was sex or not; she was being forced (in her mind) to spend eternity with a man she couldn't care less about, and when she later married her true love, she had to live with an idea that their relationship would cease to exist with death. Did abuse take place there? Oh yes.

[_Zoidberg]

With all due respect Charity, it becomes tiresome when you argue with some imagined person.

This about sums up the problem we've been facing here for a while.

[_Blixa]

I think polygamy is fine, as long as no one is being coerced. Helen Mar kimball was being coerced by Joseph Smith and her father; it doesn't matter whether there was sex or not; she was being forced (in her mind) to spend eternity with a man she couldn't care less about, and when she later married her true love, she had to live with an idea that their relationship would cease to exist with death. Did abuse take place there? Oh yes.

Here, here.

[_Runtu]

Your interpretation just means that you have read a lot into the facts that aren't explicitly stated.

I'm reading Compton's book right now. How on earth can you say something like that? Is Compton reading things into the facts?

Runtu, you know better than that. The SAINTS were giddy.

But you're specifically excusing Joseph here, are you not?

Have you read Compton? How do you deal with the fact that there have been no proven biological descendants from Joseph among his sealed wives? We know he could father children. Emma ha 10 pregnancies.

Nobody has, as far as I know, done the necessary research to determine biological descendants. What does that have to do with the fact that he had sexual relations with his wives? If you have read Compton, you know that this is the case.

My point exactly. That was what I said. God commands, it is not sin. But that doesn't mean we know everything even so.

Then why on earth are you quibbling about descendants?

And what was the norm? No offspring. That says something about the norm.

Again, if no offspring is the norm, it does not follow that "no sex" was the norm, especially given the testimony that sex was indeed the norm.

I suppose anyone who does that has a lot of repenting to do. But what is your proof that this happened?

I see the proof of this every day. :)

[_MishMagnet]

If you're talking about polyandry then fine. I'm fine with open agreements between groupings of people. I do have a problem with the societal expectation of polygamy because I do feel it's coerced. I feel that the women are generally groomed from childbirth for this kind of lifestyle and that it is not a free choice. Do I have a problem with the FLDS, hell yes. Would many of those women say they chose freely and weren't coerced - I imagine so. I suppose it all depends on your definition of coersion.

[_Runtu]

If you're talking about polyandry then fine. I'm fine with open agreements between groupings of people. I do have a problem with the societal expectation of polygamy because I do feel it's coerced. I feel that the women are generally groomed from childbirth for this kind of lifestyle and that it is not a free choice. Do I have a problem with the FLDS, hell yes. Would many of those women say they chose freely and weren't coerced - I imagine so. I suppose it all depends on your definition of coersion.

I dunno, if I were 14 and my father told me I had to do something or I would jeopardize my entire family's exaltation, I wouldn't consider that coercion, necessarily. ;)

[_charity]

Hi Charity...

All the "I know what God thinks, and He wouldn't command this" and "I know which marriages were sealings and which were plural marriages" and "all women would think this way and no woman would think that way" are false assumptions on the part of all those posters who use them. And when you take those erroneous ideas out of the topic, you would have nothing to talk about.

You are arguing against nothing. (sigh)

I am arguing against statement made here that there are people who think God did not command plural marriage. That God wouldn't command plural marriage.

Who has ever said they know what God thinks or what God would or wouldn't command? (Actually I think it is the apologists who claim to know). Who has ever said all women would think this way or that way?

Every post that says plural marriage was a crock and Joseph Smith made it up, is saying that. And there have been numerous posts about what marriage between one man and one woman is supposed to be and there oculdn't possibly be a satisfactory arrangment between 1 man and 2 women.

There is quite a bit of evidence of which you are either unaware or in denial describing sealings, marriages, intimate relationships with Joseph Smith, etc. etc.

With all due respect Charity, it becomes tiresome when you argue with some imagined person.

~dancer~

I am not ignoring any evidence. I think there probably were marriages where sexual relations were a part of it. I am sure there were some where there wasn't.

And in the future I will post a bunch of short posts when I see one person make a specific statement. it will mean a proliferation of posts if I can't address the same issue with one post. But you want it that way, you got it.

[_Runtu]

I am arguing against statement made here that there are people who think God did not command plural marriage. That God wouldn't command plural marriage.

I'm perfectly open to the idea that God sometimes commands awful stuff, like the slaughters of the Canaanites in the Old Testament. What you seem to misunderstand is that you can't have it both ways: you can't say that God commanded Joseph to take all those women (at the point of a sword, no less) but that he botched the implementation. He told those women that he was commanded to take them. He even said God had reserved some of the women from before the world was.

Every post that says plural marriage was a crock and Joseph Smith made it up, is saying that. And there have been numerous posts about what marriage between one man and one woman is supposed to be and there oculdn't possibly be a satisfactory arrangment between 1 man and 2 women.

No, we're just saying that Joseph Smith's particular implementation was a crock. How do we know this? Because everything else he did turned out to be fraudulent. We're just being consistent. That his practice was sneaky and coercive and demeaning to women is just icing on the cake.

I am not ignoring any evidence. I think there probably were marriages where sexual relations were a part of it. I am sure there were some where there wasn't.

Wow. We agree on something. :)

And in the future I will post a bunch of short posts when I see one person make a specific statement. it will mean a proliferation of posts if I can't address the same issue with one post. But you want it that way, you got it.[/b]

[/quote]

Have at it.